AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant/accused No.1 has preferred this appeal against the impugned order passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1673/2026 dated 11.08.2026.
The brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of the complaint filed by Yashwanta.K, Kaggalipura Police have registered the case in Crime No.64/2026 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has arrested the appellant on 27.02.2026 and he was produced before the Special Judge and he was remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against J1-Shivaprasad, accused No.1-Bharath Aliyas Bhusa, accused No.2-Avinash C Aliyas Avi, J2-Muthuraju Alias Muthu, accused No.4-Gajendra, accused No.5 Nagaraju.
The bail application was filed before the Special Judge under Section 483 of BNSS read with 18(A) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP, Sri K.Nageshwarappa and Sri Numair Farooq, Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that CW2 to CW9 are the eye-witnesses. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of these eyewitnesses, after lapse of one month from the date of alleged commission of offence. All the statements of the witnesses are similar in nature and the statement of the eye-witnesses are stereo type. Further, she would submit that the trial Court has granted bail to accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1123/2026, 1485/2026 and 1475/2026. The copies of the orders also produced along with memo. Further, she would submit that the accused is not required for further investigation. On all these grounds, sought for allowing this appeal.
Sri Numair Farooq, Amicus Curiae and learned HCGP, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, submit that the Special Judge has properly appreciated the materials on record in accordance with law and facts. The Special Court has clearly observed that accused No.1 actively participated in the commission of murder of deceased-Karthik. According to the case of the prosecution, last assault by long to deceased Karthik is by accused No.1 and after that assault, deceased died. Thus, there are sufficient materials on record to connect accused No.1 to the crime of committing murder of deceased Karthik and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials, the following points would arise for my consideration:
Whether the appellant/accused No.1 has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Special Court?
What order?
My answer to the above points are under:
Point No.1: in the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final Order.
Regarding Point No.1:
I have examined the materials placed before this Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by Yashwanth.K, Kaggalipura Police have registered the case in Crime No.64/2026 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014. After thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against accused No.1 to 6 which includes 2 juveniles, for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 54, 103(1), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, 3(1)(r)(s) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014, 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and 27(3) of ARMS ACT, 1959.
In Column No.17 of the charge-sheet, it is stated as under:
"ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ §gÀĪÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆPÀÄ PÀUÀΰåÀÅgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²μÀÖ eÁw (¨sÉÆë) d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ºÀvÉåUÉƼÀUÁVgÀĪÀ PÁwðPï @ ¥ÀÅlÖ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä£ÁVzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæ 1, DgÉÆæ 2, gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀμÀðPÉÆ̼ÀUÁzÀ eÉ 2 ¸ÀªÀtÂÃðAiÀÄ §¼É§tfUÉ d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀμÀðPÉÆ̼ÀUÁzÀ ¨Á®PÀ eÉ 1 ¸ÀªÀtÂÃðAiÀÄ ¸ÁzsÀıÉnÖ d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ, DgÉÆæ4 ¸ÀªÀtÂÃðAiÀÄ UÉÆ®èd£ÁAUÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ 5 ¥Àj²μÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, F »AzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:22.02.2026 gÀAzÀ gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀ: 10:00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ PÁwðPÀ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ 1 ºÁUÀÆ 2 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ H¢¥Á¼ÀåzÀ §¸ï ¸ÁÖåAqï §½ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ ¤AwgÀĪÁUÉÎ, ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ §AzÀ DgÉÆæ 1 gÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ AiÀĪÀgÀÄ KPÉ vÀqÀgÁwæAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ ¤Aw¢ÝÃj JAzÀÄ PÁwðPÀ¤UÉ ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀÄÝ, PÁwðPÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ KPÉ PÉüÀÄwÛÃj ¤£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢ÞªÁzÀ ºÉý JAzÀÄ C¸À¨sÀåªÁV ªÀwð¹zÀÝjAzÀ PÉÆÃ¥ÀUÉÆAqÀ DgÉÆæ1 ºÁUÀÆ PÁwðPÀ£À £ÀqÀÄªÉ dUÀ¼ÀªÁV DgÉÆæ1 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÁwðPÀ¤UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ QüÀÄeÁwAiÀÄ ªÀqÀØ, ¨sÉÆë £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£Éà £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ »AzÀÄjV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ ¤£ÀUÉ JμÀÄÖ zsÉÊAiÀÄð JAzÀÄ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ UÀw PÁt¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ1 vÀ£Àß ¸ÀºÀZÀgÀgÁzÀ DgÉÆæ 2, 4, 5 ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀAWÀμÀðPÉÆ̼ÀUÁzÀ ¨Á®PÀ eÉ1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á®PÀ eÉ2 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MlÄÖUÀÆr¹ ªÀÄÈvÀ PÁwðPÀ£À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀAZÀÄgÀƦ¹ ºÀvÉåUÉƼÀUÁzÀ PÁwðPÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå¸Éë¸À®Ä M©ZÀÆqÀºÀ½î gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ PÀÈμÀÚ ¹àjÃmï ªÉÊ£ï ¸ÉÆÖÃgïUÉ §AzÀÄ-ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÊ£ï ¸ÉÆÖÃgï ¹§âA¢UÀ½AzÀ w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:23.02.2026 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 06:40 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ4 UÀeÉÃAzÀæ PÀqɬÄAzÀ PÁwðPÀ¤UÉ ¥sÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁr¹ PÀÈμÀÚ ¹àjÃmï ªÉÊ£ï ¸ÉÆÖÃgï £À ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ SÁ° eÁUÀPÉÌ, PÀgɬĹPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀð ¹zÀÞvÉAiÀÄAvÉ DgÉÆæ 4 PÁwðPÀ£À eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ ¤AwzÁÝUÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆæ 4 G½zÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¤Ãr ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ §gÀªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ G½zÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀjvÀªÁzÀ ªÀiÁgÀPÁ¸ÀÛæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ §AzÀÄ KPÁ-KQ PÁwðPÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁgÀuÁAwPÀ ºÀ¯Éè £Àqɹ, qÁæUÀgï ºÁUÀÆ vÀ®ªÁgï UÀ½AzÀ PÁwðPÀ£À ºÉÆmÉÖ, vÀ¯É, JzÉ, PÀÄwÛUÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÉÊPÁ®ÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁgÀuÁAwPÀ ºÀ¯Éè £Àqɹ PÁwðPÀ£À JqÀUÉÊ£ÀÄß PÀrzÀÄ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, PÁwðPÀ£ÀÄ E£ÀÆß fêÀAvÀªÁV EgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß, UÀªÀĤ¹zÀ DgÉÆæ1 ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä ¯ÁAUï ¤AzÀ PÁwðPÀ£À PÀwÛ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É §¨sÀðgÀªÁV PÉÆaѺÁQzÀÄÝ, PÁwðPÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÀÄÈvÀºÉÆA¢zÀÝ£ÀÄß RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ J¯Áè DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀgÁjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ºÁdjzÀÝ ¥ÀævÀåPÀëzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 9 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ¸ÁAzÀ©üðPÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÀÈvÀå £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滸À¯ÁzÀ ¨sËwPÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è£À ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀvÉåUÉƼÀUÁzÀ PÁwðPÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÀPÁ¸ÀÛæUÀ½AzÀ PÉÆaÑ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤¸ÀìA±ÀAiÀĪÁV zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J¯Áè DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁwðPï £À ªÉÄð£À ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ zÉéÃμÀzÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è KPÉÆÃzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ £Àqɹ, PÁwðPÀ£À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀǪÀð¹zÀÝvÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ, DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁwðPÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁPÁ¸ÀÛæUÀ½AzÀ §¨sÀðgÀªÁV PÉÆaÑ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滸À¯ÁzÀ ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀlÖ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 54, 61(2),103(1) eÉÆvÉUÉ 190 ºÁUÀÆ 3(1)(Dgï), 3(1)(J¸ï), 3(2)(5) ¥Àj¹μÀÖ eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àj²μÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ (zËdð£Àå vÀqÉ) wzÀÄÝ¥Àr PÁAiÉÄÝ-2015 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A 27(3) 1959 ±À¸ÁÛç¸ÀÛç ¤μÉÃzsÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ jÃvÁå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁzÀ zÉÆÃμÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ."
According to the case of the prosecution, CW2 to CW9 are the eye-witnesses to the incident. The trial Court has observed the impugned order in Para No.11 as under:
"accused No.1 actively participated in the commission of murder of deceased Karthik. According to prosecution the last assault by long to deceased Karthik is by accused No.1 and after that assault the deceased died. Thus there is sufficient material on record to connect the accused No.1 to the crime of committing murder of deceased Karthik. When such is the case, accused No.1 the main accused cannot be released on bail on the ground of parity of releasing accused 2 and 3 whose names were not stated by the alleged eye witnesses. Thus in view of the above having regard to the material available on record, I am of the opinion that this is not fit case of grant bail to the accused No.1 the main accused till examination of material witnesses. In view of the above, I answer point No.1 in the Negative."
On careful examination of the materials, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there are prima facie materials to proceed against accused No.1 for the commission of alleged offences. The alleged offences are heinous in nature, same are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. At this stage, if the appellant is released on bail, there is every possibility of tampering or threatening the prosecution witnesses and it will also affect the society at large. Accordingly, I do not find any legal or factual error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
Regarding Point No.2:
For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
The Registry directed the pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Sri Numair Farooq, Amicus Curiae.